You know the ones I mean. They vary from state to state, but theyre basically alike. If youre driving a car, and you dont have a seat belt on, you can get a ticket.

Sometimes its just the driver, sometimes its everyone in the car.

Youve heard the sob stories. They roll out some state trooper, or a paramedic, and have him tell you a heartbreaking story about how many accident scenes hes been to, and how it breaks his heart to see the carnage, and how seatbelts are the only hope we have.

And we see how much the state loves us, passing laws to protect us, shielding us from our own stupidity.

And were grateful.

We see seatbelt laws as a sign of social progress, as proof were an enlightened society.

But are we right?

Are seatbelt laws a good idea?

The answer to that, surprisingly, has nothing to do with seatbelts.

Because theres no question about that. If you dont use a seatbelt, you are an idiot. The benefit and protection that come from seatbelts cannot be denied.

Buckle your seatbelt. Dont start the car until you have, and until everyone else has as well.

But thats not the point.

Seatbelt laws arent about seatbelts, they are about freedom. And the role of government.

The question isnt, Should you wear a seatbelt? It is, Can government force you to wear a seatbelt?

And, in spite of what the state legislatures have done, the answer to the second question, in America, is clear. The answer is, No.

We are a free people. Our government, as envisioned in our founding documents, is small and weak. It is not meant to make every decision or to legislate in every area. It is not meant to run our lives.

And yet we have come to let it.

Piece by piece, inch by inch, American freedom has dwindled and dwindled.

We are the victims of tyranny in the name of compassion.

Slavery in the guise of protection.

Each benefit of government has come at the cost of a corresponding liberty.

We are safer, but we are less free.

And we have been robbed.

Because freedom is better than safety. Liberty more important than life, and self-reliance of greater worth than governmental paternalism.

We are a nation built on the belief that all power resides with the people. Government can only exercise the power it has been granted by the people. In America, the power of government was meant to be severely limited. In America, the government is to be the servant, not the master. In America, people are believed to be the best off when they are the most free, when they run their own lives and make their own decisions.

But our government treats us like children. It takes our liberty from us with hardly a second thought. It expands its power over us without restraint. It mandates by force of law in matters that are and should be entirely personal and private.

Like seatbelts.

Sure, the government says it is acting for our best good.

But, shouldnt we decide as free individuals what is in our best good?

Doesnt governments desire to protect us from harm unavoidably separate us from God-given liberty?

Of course it does.

And yet we have taken it like sheep.

We have thanked and re-elected those legislators who have orchestrated our bondage. We have cooperated with the squandering of our national birthright. What others fought and died for, we have flushed down the toilet. Because we havent been smart enough to remember what this country is all about.

Freedom.

And every policy or decision of the government must pass a simple test: Does it diminish our individual liberty?

If it does, it must not be allowed. If it does, it is inherently unconstitutional. If it does, it is dangerously and unacceptably un-American.

We must be able to distinguish between what counts and what does not. We must not be confused by irrelevance. Like those sob stories the cops and insurance people tell about seatbelts.

They are beside the point.

Seatbelt laws arent about seatbelts.

They are about law, and the proper role of law.

And whether or not you wear a seatbelt is your business. It is not the governments business. You are free to be stupid, and the government has no right to outlaw stupidity.

Seatbelt laws are velvet chains. Were told they are for our own good, but they are nothing more than government oppression. They are Big Brother pretending to be our mommy.

And one more example of how we have come to accept what earlier generations of Americans would have fought to the death to resist.

Why the heck didn't I need a dang bicycle helmet when I was a kid, yet my parents never got accused of child neglect for not making me wear them?? The amount of laws is ridiculous. It's all about the government taking away our parental rights and stepping in to parent our children for us

Stupid law. It's just another way for the police to "introduce" themselves to you...oh, and generate some revenue at the same time. Of course, wearing one will increase your chances of survival, but so will keeping your shoe laces tied while walking down the stairs. Do we NEED a law for that, too?

I have a home in the Dominican Republic and they just recently instituted seat belt laws for drivers. They're not heavily enforced as they don't have the personnel. They also outlawed drivers using cell phones. The irony is, you can drink and drive. As long as I have my seat belt on and am not talking on the phone, I can chug away and the cop on the corner won't even bat an eye.

In your world, we would need to have higher insurance rates for people who like the freedom of not wearing a seatbelt and who thus have bigger payouts when an accident does occur.
The rest of us should not have to pay for your freedom to live dangerously .

Driving a car is a privilege afforded you by the state, not a God-given right. If it was we'd have every mentally ill moron tailgating us at 80mph. (Hey wait, we have that now!)

But the point is they can require you to wear a seat belt if in our representational form of government our elected officials have passed a law so stating. Geesh! Libertarians get so bent-out-of-shape over such silly laws. Just buckle up and try to have a nice day.

The real problem is that we haven't allowed insurance companies to discriminate in their pricing. In a just society, if you want to drive without seatbelts, bareback in a bath-house, or go bungee jumping, you can PAY for the risk that the activity will result in injury. As it is, the State forces the insurers not to discriminate so all those people pay the same medical insurance rates. We have thus politically removed one of insurance's primary roles in a free market: motivating the adoption of low risk behavior while fairly allocating capital to deal with a problem should high risk behavior lead to mishap.

When we socialize medicine so that the taxpayer picks up the tab if the insurer won't pay, the public has a claim on regulating risky behavior. We have thus ceded the freedom to do as we please becuause it is no longer possible to account for risk.

12
posted on 01/27/2003 12:38:20 PM PST
by Carry_Okie
(Because there are people in power who are truly evil.)

The problem you have is with the socialist health care and welfare programs; not the seatbelt law. If someone wants to endanger their own lives, it is none of your business. By using these arguments, you open the door for the government to control all aspects of our lives in the name of "our own good". If a person is not free to make dumb decisions, they are not free. In Tennessee, they have started a program called "Click It or Ticket", it may be national, I'm not sure. I am also not sure if they are referring to our seat belts or our heels.

I don't want to pay cash (taking care of the family, paying for medical care and extensive physical therapy, etc.) for someone else's stupidity in not wearing a seatbelt

That problem is entirely due to socialistic health care, and has nothing to do with seatbelt use.

And yet, you defend the seatbelt law while not attacking the underlying socialism that causes costs to be shifted to you.

Curious, and telling.

We all know that with freedom comes responsiblility. The idea behind socialism is that once you are not responsible for your own actions, others are. And those others are going to take your freedom in exchange.

Interesting choice of words. Ever notice how the word "community" forms the core of the word "communism?"

Be your own wet nurse if you like; I think I'll pass. Realize at the same time your loss of freedom allows your benevolent auto insurance company to beat the odds (debateably) and still charge confiscatory rates.

The real problem is that we haven't allowed insurance companies to discriminate in their pricing. In a just society, if you want to drive without seatbelts, bareback in a bath-house, or go bungee jumping, you can PAY for the risk that the activity will result in injury. As it is, the State forces the insurers not to discriminate so all those people pay the same medical insurance rates

Thank you. I still have a best friend because of a seatbelt. 70 MPH, drivers side front fender(his car) head on against driver's side fender(other car). He walked away with a bruise on his shoulder from the belt. He was driving Civic hatchback. Utterly totalled. Fortunately, no one killed. I haven't driven 10 feet without my belt on since.

The rest of us should not have to pay for your freedom to live dangerously.

Amen! We can go after the motorcycles next. Then the smokers. Oh wait we are already doing that. Then the eaters of un-healthy foods. Then those that do not exercise at least 3 days a week for an hour at a time. Then those that don't get enough sleep. Then those that sit too close to the T.V. Then those that don't wear helmets in the tub. What a great country we will finally have!

Unless we're discussing one's very own private road, then the State may and must set limits and conditions upon the use of roads.

You'd love NY State then. The Karl Marx brigade are usually the first in the country to find new rules to save us from ourselves. In fact we were the first ones to start seat belt laws. After all, the insurance companies donate lots of money to those campaign coffers, they have a right to be heard.

I would like to add that you don't even have the option anymore to BUY a vehicle without both a driver and passenger side airbag. I work for GM and here are some intersting tidbits for you.

When you buckle your seatbelt you improve your chances of surviving a front end collision by 65%.

When you buckle your seatbelt in a vehicle equipped with a driver's side airbag, you improve your chances of surviving a front end collision by another 5%.

When you buckle your seaatbelt in the passenger seat, your chances improve 50%

Adding a passenger side airbag has had a zero percent effect on survivability. In other words, the passenger side airbag is virtually worthless.(Understand we are talking about survivability, a case can be made for improvements in reducing injury, however, any improvement here must be weighed against the infant deaths caused by passenger side airbags.)

In other words our government has mandated things in the name of safety which don't make us any safer, just poorer, as these widgets add much to the price of the car AND insurance premiums.

We have thanked and re-elected those legislators who have orchestrated our bondage. We have cooperated with the squandering of our national birthright. What others fought and died for, we have flushed down the toilet. Because we havent been smart enough to remember what this country is all about.

I don't know how we get back to where we were, I agree that the comparatively minuscule improvement in safety has not been worth the now epidemic increase in the erosion of our freedoms.

Driving a car is a privilege afforded you by the state, not a God-given right.

Upon a time I would have bought that. However, look around outside: this country is not designed with human beings first and foremost, it is designed as a habitat for cars, and I really don't see this as particularly debatable (perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd like to see the proof). Once that happened, it became a right.

I agree that people who do not choose to wear seatbelts should probably be able to... as long as they pay more in insurance rates.

Frankly, it's kind of pathetic that you even need a law like this instead of relying on people to care about their own self-preservation independently.

A great argument against socialized medicine, by the way. I don't want to pay for other peoples stupid health choices or be overregulated in this arena either. People should be able to smoke, eat cheeseburgers for every meal, and ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't want to pay their medical bills.

"in spite of what the state legislatures have done, the answer to the second question, in America, is clear. The answer is, No.

Right, and I am waiting to see what happens when somebody tells that to the cop who is issuing the ticket or the judge when it is taken to court.

"Government can only exercise the power it has been granted by the people. In America"

Funny, I don't recall voting for a seatbelt law. Come to think of it, I don't remember voting for a lot of liberty-robbing laws. I don't remember any of my representatives ever asking my opinion about it either.

The reason that the insurance companies have accepted socializing risk is that there is no longer any rational possibility in actuarially predicting a prospective settlement associated with a specific class of risks. Worse, if the capital is there to manage the risk the trial lawyers go after it like blood in the water.

This is a direct outcome of the degree to which the trial lawyers have ruined the court system in this country. To show you how far-reaching this becomes, consider how socializing risk through FAA regulations made it possible for airlines to operate with poor security and cheesy cockpit doors.

39
posted on 01/27/2003 12:58:45 PM PST
by Carry_Okie
(Because there are people in power who are truly evil.)

What about the propaganda that it causes a financial burden on the state by the uninsured for hospital emergency room visits? Was it really a significant amount of money and has the debt to the state lessened since the advent of these laws?

If were going to regulate dangerous behavior we need to apply the same propaganda to every thing wearing helmets for all ladders above two steps, outlaw sky diving, mandatory pads and helmet for skiing, ice skating, etc.

Fine. If people don't want to wear their seatbelts, go for it. However, let them pay for their medical bills out of theirs and their families' pockets. No insurance. No hospital "eating the costs". No government assistance. Etc....

Since there is no Constitutional right involved here, and because the roads governed by the laws are funded by the government of the people and by the people in a democratic system, it is a matter of majority rule.

SHOULD the gov't outlaw every vice and mandate every vitrue? Of course not.

CAN they? To the extent the constitution is not offended, of course they can.

Get involved and change the law - stop whining about a right that does not exist under our current Constitution.

I have to chuckle when I see the ad on TV from DirecTV on the kid riding his bike without a helmet. The father calls out to his son who isn't wearing a helmet and does the usual speech along the lines of "haven't I told you to use a helmet when riding your bike, you could get hurt if you fall", then he proceeds to tell his kid to climb the ladder to the top of the house and take down the DirecTV dish. The kid procceds to look up at the roof and then looks at his bike. He has to be wondering, if he has to ride a bike with a helmet, but no helmet to climb on top of the house! How confusing can that be!

Hey! Y'all stole that from NC! Y'all make up your own name fer it, goldurn it! :}We have the same thing here...its just an excuse for the cops to stop people for no other reason maybe sniff the car, look at your dl and registration...make a lil money for Raleigh. Its a farce and I resent it. But, as I am sure you guys know in TN, once its passed, it would take an act of God to get it repealed.

In your world, we would need to have higher insurance rates for people who like the freedom of not wearing a seatbelt and who thus have bigger payouts when an accident does occur. The rest of us should not have to pay for your freedom to live dangerously .

I have no problem with insurance companies charging a higher premium for risk takers.

I do have a problem with insurance company lobbyists writing our laws.

I personally like the New Hampshire attitude, where signs on the roads entering the state say (approximately),"If you're under 18 buckle up. It's the law. If you're over 18, have a nice day."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.